Some people believe in fate. Or faith. The idea that believing in something can inspire or cause something to happen. The idea that we are able to conceive notions outside of our own perception of what benefits us. The idea that these notions can transcend what we have seen or experienced, what we have tasted or felt, and what we have screwed or stumbled over or almost died because of.
The Republican faithful were once like that. They believed their revolution would change the climate in Washington, that their moral leaders wouldn't be corrupted by the power Democrats so easily succumbed to. That somehow their runaway government would take this theological mandate literally and promote their interests regardless of political consequence. The casual handling of the Foley scandal, revelations from administration insiders that the President's staff ridicules evangelists in private and the biweekly ethics scandals have shattered that illusion.
This is the political landscape. These broad perceptions are not the be-all, end-all factors in localized midterm election races. Regardless, they are important to all of us because they frame the debate. Is Tammy Baldwin really leaving our district unheard in Washington, and how legit is the often cited "No. 424" ranking in congressional influence? How successful can a former radio pundit like Dave Magnum be in addressing the concerns of students and, will he be another rubber-stamped vote for Republican congressional leadership?
Recently, a friend asked me whether Republican scandal on the national level would change the way I think about candidates who had little if anything to do with it. This question touches at the heart of the internal debate of the scrupulous voter: Do I direct my vote at a candidate or the national apparatus? The answer is that gubernatorial and congressional candidates are tied to national politics because they correspond to the ideological debate surrounding the course of our government.
In short, a "kick the bums out" mentality to voting in this midterm election is a valid approach to take to the polls. Many feel as if GOP failures are representative of democracies' ingrained imperfections and inevitable pitfalls. However true this seems, this Achilles heel in our system has been especially exposed recently because we have granted one organization control of three branches of government that work best in opposition. The Republicans' success in inspiring party loyalty based on broad cultural conservatism was too perfect for its own good. Its perfection denied it the ideological checks and balances that would have given them political cover for failures and stymied extremists who sought to take the mantra too far (See: Terri Schiavo).
A great example of bipartisanship making government work is California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gives liberal Democrats the political cover needed to moderate legislation. The Republican governor is afforded the same protection from conservative voters.
In terms of Wisconsin's gubernatorial race, the central question is whether Mark Green's record in Congress justifies the ousting of a governor who has achieved his chief election promise, to drastically reduce a budget deficit caused by a Republican governor and Legislature. Mark Green, on the other hand, seems to be applying the lessons he learned in Washington: divide the electorate with wedge issues. From his assertions that the University of Wisconsin is in a state of disrepair to insisting discrimination be written into our state constitution, the Green campaign is oddly reminiscent of the "Rovian" politics he was exposed to in Washington.
When it comes to the state Attorney General's race, similar parallels can be made to national politics, as Kathleen Falk believes Wisconsin needs a politically active top cop to protect it from ever increasing federal intrusion. J.B. Van Hollen, on the other hand, claims to see the position as a narrow, law-enforcement role. But like Green, he emphasizes his support for unnecessary voter photo-ID legislation and a redundant gay marriage ban.
We need to think of political parties like individuals: always starting things we will never finish, or never intended to finish, or have no capability or will to finish. Most goals are only accomplished in response to a challenge. What better challenge than a strong opposition party or the threat of losing power? In politics, fate must exist to justify the past and belief must exist to validate the future. Thus, GOP control was destined to fail, and we must believe the inclusion of Democrats will lead to more productive policy.
Bassey Etim ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
